Assessing Micromobility Users’ Knowledge of Regulations: Valencia (Spain) Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors conducted a survey to assess participants knowledge of rules and regulations around riding a scooter or bike in Spain.

1. Table 2, please explain abbreviations as an * below table
2. Did you use any attention to identify participants who just clicked on answers without reading the questions. Also, did you remove any invalid responses?
3. Where the participants rewarded for taking part?
4. I find your age groups a bit strange, I mean, first you have a 10 year gab, and then a 20 year gap. And the 20 year gap has twice as many participants compared to the 10 year gap. It appears on your figure that most participants are middle age, but actually you only include more years into that age group.
5. You call it global score, average score, gross score, etc. please just use one one name for the same score. Why don’t you just simply calculate the share of correlty answered questions. Everybody knows what that is. By defining a score, the reader always need to check back in the methods to see how the score was calculated. Countries also have different grading systems, a high score is in some countries better and in other countries a low score is better than a high score. You risk that readers who don’t read your methods miss interpret your results. Please change it to % of correctly answered questions.
6. I know that you only allowed people who use micro mobility to take part. However, did you differentiated between cyclists and those that ride scooters? I mean maybe cyclists only know the rules for cycling and scooter riders only know the rules for scooters.
7. It might make sense to write in the title that this study is focussed on Spain.
8. Please add the survey to the appendix and highlight the correct answer for each question.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I don’t understand this: Saddle can be added only if the vehicle also counts with a self-balancing system.

And other errors:

By 22nd of January of 2024 all PMVs commercialize in Spain <- commercialized

survey was designed as an evaluation where a global scored was <- overall score not world wide participants

Circulate on sidewalk <- ride on sidewalk

using a “showy” post

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article: Assessing Micromobility Users' Knowledge of Regulations: Valencia case study focuses on the significant topic. However, there are visible issues with clarity, logical information flow, and some methodological justifications that should be improved. The paper has large number of grammatical errors, awkward sentence structures and unclear sentences. It should be read and improved by a native English speaker.

Details to improve:

• the introduction contains general information but lacks general justification for why this study was necessary,
• the research gap is not clearly articulated,
• the study applies ANOVA tests but does not clearly discuss effect sizes,
• why only five independent variables were considered not others (e.g., level of education, frequency of micromobility use),
• some references appear incomplete or lack formatting consistency.
• terms such as "PMV" should be defined upon first use.

Publication after minor changes has the strong potential for publication.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper has large number of grammatical errors, awkward sentence structures and unclear sentences. It  should be read and improved by a native English speaker.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment. Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Problem

The authors note the global increase of micro-mobility with personal mobility vehicles and raise questions on : “To what extent are micromobility users aware of the applicable regulations? Do they comply with these regulations? How can be ensured users’ knowledge and adherence to micromobility laws?” Therefore, their study aims to assess micromobility users’ knowledge of applicable regulations through an online evaluation survey conducted in Valencia, Spain. The underlying hypothesis is that “users might have different knowledge varies based on socio-demographic characteristics and mobility-related factors”.

Methodology

The overall methodology contains four stages: (i) regulation review in Valencia (General Circulation Statement, and the technical specifications for Personal Mobility Vehicles), (ii) survey design, (iii) data collection from 1 July to 15 November 2024 (participants were recruited from the academic community via e-mail, and via social networks to get to a general audience. (n=167), and (iv) univariate and multi-variate analysis of users’ knowledge expressed on a Likert scale 0-10. All statistical analyses were performed using Python 3.10 in Google Colaboratory: NumPy, Pandas, Statsmodels, Matplotlib, and Seaborn for data processing, statistical testing, and visualization.

The results of the data analyses are presented in a series of figures, graphs and tables. A short Discussion Section comments on the main findings.

Evaluation

The topic investigated is an important one in the field of road safety given the increase in personal mobility devices in Valencia. The methodologies are clearly described. The survey questions and the data collected are clear and the statistical analyses are thoroughly presented and interpreted. The discussion and conclusions draw out the main findings of the research.

Given that one of the study’s hypothesis was that users might have different knowledge which varies by socio-demographic characteristics, the discussion and conclusions should emphasis these findings.

Minor Errors

The English expression is inadequate in places (for example, see the above quotations under Problem stated by the authors).

The text is poorly structured in its paragraphs (see, for example, lines 62-63).

Line 59 – United Kingdom should read (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) – not London.

Line 192 “The survey was created and distributed using Microsoft Forms. The unique access 191 link was: https://forms.office.com/e/9GdYXS3dmH.” -  this link is closed.

Several references are incomplete. 1-3, 9, 24, 28, and 29.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

see comments to authors

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.   Best regards.      

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed my comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reproduced below is this reviewer’s report on the first submission. The authors have addressed satisfactorily each point in their resubmission.

Problem

The authors note the global increase of micro-mobility with personal mobility vehicles and raise questions on : “To what extent are micromobility users aware of the applicable regulations? Do they comply with these regulations? How can be ensured users’ knowledge and adherence to micromobility laws?” Therefore, their study aims to assess micromobility users’ knowledge of applicable regulations through an online evaluation survey conducted in Valencia, Spain. The underlying hypothesis is that “users might have different knowledge varies based on socio-demographic characteristics and mobility-related factors”.

Methodology

The overall methodology contains four stages: (i) regulation review in Valencia (General Circulation Statement, and the technical specifications for Personal Mobility Vehicles), (ii) survey design, (iii) data collection from 1 July to 15 November 2024 (participants were recruited from the academic community via e-mail, and via social networks to get to a general audience. (n=167), and (iv) univariate and multi-variate analysis of users’ knowledge expressed on a Likert scale 0-10. All statistical analyses were performed using Python 3.10 in Google Colaboratory: NumPy, Pandas, Statsmodels, Matplotlib, and Seaborn for data processing, statistical testing, and visualization.

The results of the data analyses are presented in a series of figures, graphs and tables. A short Discussion Section comments on the main findings.

Evaluation

The topic investigated is an important one in the field of road safety given the increase in personal mobility devices in Valencia. The methodologies are clearly described. The survey questions and the data collected are clear and the statistical analyses are thoroughly presented and interpreted. The discussion and conclusions draw out the main findings of the research.

Given that one of the study’s hypothesis was that users might have different knowledge which varies by socio-demographic characteristics, the discussion and conclusions should emphasis these findings.

Minor Errors

The English expression is inadequate in places (for example, see the above quotations under Problem stated by the authors).

The text is poorly structured in its paragraphs (see, for example, lines 62-63).

Line 59 – United Kingdom should read (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) – not London.

Line 192 “The survey was created and distributed using Microsoft Forms. The unique access 191 link was: https://forms.office.com/e/9GdYXS3dmH.” -  this link is closed.

Several references are incomplete. 1-3, 9, 24, 28, and 29.

The re-submission contains two minor errors:

1. The revised title should read: Assessing Micromobility Users' Knowledge of Regulations: Valencia (Spain) Case Study
2. The first sentence does not constitute a full paragraph.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below. The corresponding revisions are highlighted in the re-submitted file as well.

Comment 1: The revised title should read: Assessing Micromobility Users' Knowledge of Regulations: Valencia (Spain) Case Study

Response 1: Thanks for your revision, the title has been corrected. Capital letters to the words “case” and “study” have been added.

Comment 2: The first sentence does not constitute a full paragraph.

Response 2: Thanks for the observation, a new idea has been added to the introduction in order to have a full paragraph. Added on page 1, lines 29-30.